| Revision as of 14:51, 2 September 2015 editCrossswords (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,708 edits →name dispute is unnessary information← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:55, 2 September 2015 edit undoIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →name dispute is unnessary information: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| http://www.gaijin.com/2014/01/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ | http://www.gaijin.com/2014/01/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ | ||
| you even havent read the article, the source is by the Gaijin.com owner. its not reliable source--] (]) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | you even havent read the article, the source is by the Gaijin.com owner. its not reliable source--] (]) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Note how I said "slow-burning edit war" not "3 reverts in 24 hours". Please try to maintain some professional decorum; implying that I do ''not'' have work and other activities to occupy my time is unnecessarily snarky (and also ] ). | |||
| ::On the sources, I was pointing you to TechDirt. Which is ''a'' source and is a ''reliable'' source. If you want to remove information attributed solely to the source blog, go right ahead, but I suspect "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit according to techdirt" is not a substantial improvement over "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit and lost". ] (]) 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:55, 2 September 2015
Biased
This page is clearly written as a biased piece of advertising by a member of that company. Even worse, it is absolutely the same text which you can find on their website. As such, it should be wholesale edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.246.84 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with above. I'm going to flag this article (NPOV, cleanup/deletion?) in a few hours unless someone with more wiki-fu than I steps in and tells me not to. The only citations are one to the company itself's website providing evidence that the company is Russian, and then two links to the App Store pages for two of their products, which seem more like product placements than legitimate citations. sherpajack (talk ) 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
World of Planes...?
So... there's no mention of this?
http://worldofplanesgame.com/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.150.132 (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no Logo?
Why is there no Logo? Please add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.99.169 (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Missing infobox
Missing infobox wants to needed in this article. Add this please. Thank you. Bryancyriel (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
name dispute is unnessary information
the links are from a podcast site and a blog which are not allowed as sourced material for verification. Also why does it matter? The case is settled, in wikipedia stuff like this is unnecessary information. Imagine if every companys articles have stuff like that added about domain cases? This is unnecessary information added probably by the site owner himself from Gaijin.com (the Gaijin about the Japanese topic).--Crossswords (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Crosswords: first-off, you should read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. To summarise them for you; when there is a dispute over a change the expected behaviour is to revert back to the status quo and discuss it. Not to revert back to the status quo, wait a few weeks until you hope people have gone away, and then revert the revert. Consider yourself warned; we will discuss this and if we cannot resolve it the default will stay around and if we can resolve it then great, but if you continue to engage in a slow-burning edit war my next venue is the administrators' noticeboard.
- Second: It's not "a podcast site and a blog"; Techdirt is a news site so popular for technology news we have a Misplaced Pages article on it. The case is indeed settled, but things being historical does not make them irrelevant; literally everything possibly on Misplaced Pages is in some way historical. If every company had issued unfounded and ludicrous lawsuits I would indeed expect it to be in every article.
- If you have evidence that the information was added by the website owner I would like you to present it. If you do not, you are making unfounded allegations about a living person (which is thoroughly not cricket) and a fellow Wikipedian, to boot. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- look at my editing history, you wont see me editing within a week anything else because i actually have work and other activities in my life over wikipedia. And yes its allowed to edit after a week or more.
http://www.gaijin.com/2014/01/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/ you even havent read the article, the source is by the Gaijin.com owner. its not reliable source--Crossswords (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note how I said "slow-burning edit war" not "3 reverts in 24 hours". Please try to maintain some professional decorum; implying that I do not have work and other activities to occupy my time is unnecessarily snarky (and also really inaccurate).
- On the sources, I was pointing you to TechDirt. Which is a source and is a reliable source. If you want to remove information attributed solely to the source blog, go right ahead, but I suspect "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit according to techdirt" is not a substantial improvement over "they issued a ludicrous lawsuit and lost". Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)